- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellants were appointed as Constables in the Police Department of the State of Punjab. They had been put on a duty to keep a watch on Bhagu Ram who was admitted in a hospital. He was allegedly shackled to the bed. At about 9 p.m. on the intervening night of 19th/20th May, 1984, the appellants alongwith one Parminder Singh (since deceased) were found to be absent by the Inspector of Police. He made enquiries whereupon, he came to know that all the three constables were absent from duty from 9 p.m. onwards. Other constables from the police lines had to be requisitioned. They reported to Police Lines at about 3 a.m. on the same day. They were charge sheeted and a departmental proceedings was initiated against them. The Enquiry Officer found them guilty. The enquiry report was accepted by the Superintendent of Police, the Disciplinary Authority. A second Show Cause Notice was issued to which all the delinquent officers replied. By an Order dated 21.1.1985, the disciplinary authority, however, having found the cause shown by the delinquents to be unsatisfactory, passed orders of dismissal from service against them. Appellants and said Parminder Singh filed a suit. One of the contentions raised in the said suit was that in passing the order of punishment, the disciplinary authority had not complied with the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. It reads as under:- "16.2 Dismissal - Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. (2) An enrolled police officer convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on a criminal charge shall be dismissed : "Provided that in case the conviction of a police officer is set aside in appeal or revision, the officer empowered to appoint him shall review his case keeping in view the instructions issued by the Government in this behalf."
(3.) Whereas the learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that the misconduct committed by the delinquents was of grave nature, the first Appellate Court held: "I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants because admittedly all the three constables, who are plaintiff-appellants because admittedly all the three constables, who are plaintiff-appellants before me were on duty in the T.B. Hospital, to escort and prisoner, where at least one person could have been present because as per Rule 18.5 and 6 a constable can be on duty for three hours only and the department had put three persons on duty and therefore, they could not be present for 24 hours. So they had committed slight delineation in duty. Thus we can say that one of them was atleast absent, who was on duty at that time and it has been admitted that Parminder Singh alias Bhola was on duty at that time when the absence of the plaintiff- appellants was marked, but that absence cannot be taken to be serious lapse which merits dismissal from service. It is well settled that the punishment of dismissal is not proper in case of absence from duty and I am supported on this point by a case State of Punjab Vs. Ahhar Singh, reported as 1991 (4) SLR 539 wherein it was held as under:- "Mere absence from duty for a few days does not amount to an act of gravest misconduct and the cumulative effort of which may go to prove incorriginiety and complete unfitness of the employees for police service and dismissal from service was held illegal." Even otherwise, I am of the considered view that if a person committed negligence of being absent from duty that should not go to the root of his service because in that case it will be too harsh not only for him, but for the children who are dependent on him..";